#they didn’t have to VIOLATE robby like that and then claim they didn’t!!

[breckstonevailskier]

What I mean is, I think the writers approach things from a place of, ‘I would like X to happen, so we will make the characters get there no matter what.’ Rather than from a place of, ‘What would the characters do if X happened?’ And, yeah, some cool stuff happens in Cobra Kai, but so often at the expense of characterization. And in the process of getting to a certain place they leave no time to really explore these cool characters that they’ve made.

This. This is almost certainly the root behind many of my issues with the writing. It's these moments where it's very clear that the writers had a scene idea in mind, and decided to warp the characters to fit the original scene idea rather than have the scene be rewritten to fit the characters and what we know about them.

This is how we get moments like the prom fight, where it's clear that the writers wanted a "couples fight" but didn't really think through how to get there. And what they gave ultimately was a disservice to Miguel and especially to Sam.

Or how we get Amanda's flip flopping in her positions on Tory.

The thing about Cobra Kai that’s so unfortunate is that it’s not a character focused show.

What I mean is, I think the writers approach things from a place of, ‘I would like X to happen, so we will make the characters get there no matter what.’ Rather than from a place of, ‘What would the characters do if X happened?’

And, yeah, some cool stuff happens in Cobra Kai, but so often at the expense of characterization. And in the process of getting to a certain place they leave no time to really explore these cool characters that they’ve made.

So many of these characters have such deep traumas and insights, but the audience never gets to see anything come of them. It’s all just left in the background.

And, possibly even worse, you end up with these 2 dimensional characters like Zara and Kwon who are just doing bad shit for the sake of doing bad shit (and I’m not even gonna touch on the racism aspect-that’s its own post). I’m not saying every antagonist needs a redemption arc, but the things they’re doing should make sense, especially if you’re going to kill one of them off. Like, if they had done ANYTHING to show that had Kwon had a different mentor things could have been different, that would have hit HARD. But instead the only real sadness is because he was a kid and Kreese brought the knife. It doesn’t hit the way it could have because Kwon was more plot device than character. He should have been a parallel to characters like Hawk and Kenny. Like, this is what they could have been had they not had the support they did to get them out of Cobra Kai. This is what happens when you let hatred lead you. Instead, asshole kid got stabbed 🤷‍♀️

And it’s just so unsatisfying to have all of these characters and never get to see the things they’ve been through get unpacked in a meaningful way.

It’s always episodes worth of conflict that they decide to gloss over in one line to get to the next thing. And it’s so underwhelming. You have these great moments of building only to have the world’s most pathetic climax.

Cobra Kai has great characters with interesting backgrounds if they’d ever follow through with the effects of those things.

[arcticdementor]

Alyssa Reid and Kathryn Lese met nearly a decade ago at James Madison University (JMU). At the time, Reid was a faculty member of the School of Communications Studies, where she taught a speech class attended by Lese.

The two became best friends, and after Lese graduated from JMU and became a graduate teacher for the speech and debate team, she and Reid became a couple. Reason’s Robby Soave reported that Reid was initially reluctant to date Lese, fearful it would ruin their friendship, but the two eventually started a relationship.

“When she first told me that she had feelings for me, I immediately told her that we can’t be in a relationship,” Reid told Reason. “But she was very persistent and eventually it just became a reality after time.”

Two-and-a-half years later, the two went through a bad breakup. Both were hurt, but Reid said that Lese tried to ruin her life after the breakup.

Nearly a year after the breakup, Lese filed a complaint with JMU’s Title IX office, the details of which were never made clear to Reid, even though that complaint led to an investigation and punishment. The complaint basically accused Reid of having a nonconsensual relationship with Lese for more than two years.

…

Reid was suspended from teaching and eventually found to have violated a portion of JMU’s sexual misconduct policy that didn’t exist at the time she was in a relationship with Lese. During the investigation, Reid was told to prepare a defense without being told the specific charges against her. She was also asked to find witnesses to corroborate her side of the story, again without specifics. Reid was eventually given Lese’s exact statement, but only after her witnesses were interviewed, according to her lawsuit.

Ahead of the hearing, Reid was told she would have to write down her questions for Lese and give them to the hearing’s chair, who would then decide which questions to ask of Lese. But neither Lese nor her witnesses attended the hearing, so Reid couldn’t cross-examine them.

Such is the norm in college adjudication of sexual misconduct. Accusers are not required to attend the hearing and are therefore able to avoid being questioned about their claims, without anything held against them. Evidence that could likely be obtained by the defense is simply not heard and no one cares.

If the accused refuses to attend the hearing, however, it is almost certainly held against them and their lack of defense is used to find them responsible. That is because schools don’t operate like a typical legal system, where the accuser has to prove the evidence against the accused. In college adjudications, the accused must find overwhelming evidence to prove their innocence, without the accuser having to provide anything but their claims.

For Reid, the inability to question Lese or her witnesses resulted in a finding of responsibility. Reid was not fired, but she was denied the ability to apply for a promotion. She found a job at another school, but when her new employer found out about the accusation, the offer was rescinded.

As Reason noted, the accusations and finding against Reid are especially confusing because her relationship with Lese had already been investigated and found to be consensual. While they were dating, an unnamed person at JMU filed a complaint about the couple. JMU investigated and determined that Reid and Lese were colleagues and two consenting adults allowed to date. There was no teacher/student or supervisor/employee issue.

Yet years later, the university reversed its decision and determined that Reid and Lese’s entire relationship was nonconsensual.

[latinovoice]

Mé

The Jon S. Randal Peace Page

March 3  ·

"The school bell rings and I go out to play and this little white boy comes up to me and he says, you’re a Mexican, what are you doing here? Don’t you know Mexicans aren’t allowed to go to this white school? Why are you here? And I started crying," remembers Sylvia Méndez.

Méndez remembers that day clearly, and she remembers how her parents, especially her mother, fought for her.

For Women's History Month from the Peace Page, a story about a mother and daughter.

Seven years before Brown v. Board of Education, the historic case that ended legal school segregation in the US in 1954, a Puerto Rican mother would plant the seeds that started it all.

Felícitas Méndez became a civil rights pioneer in the early 1940s, according to Remezcla.

It started when Méndez and her husband, Gonzalo, tried to enroll their children in the local all-white Westminster Elementary School.

"Like any parent, Felicitas wanted her children to receive the best education possible. However, when a relative tried to enroll her 8-year-old daughter, Sylvia Méndez, in an all-white school, she was turned away," according to Remezcla.

At that time, "by law, school districts in California segregated American Indian and Asian children. They also commonly placed Latino and African American students in separate programs," according to the Smithsonian.

The school would discriminate against the children of Méndez because they had darker skin and had a Mexican-sounding name. Their cousins, however, were accepted because they had lighter skin color and had a French-sounding name, Vidaurri (their father was part French).

The school administrator told Felicitas’ sister-in-law that "you can leave your children here, but you’ll have to take your brother’s kids to a Mexican school."

Felicitas’ daughter, Sylvia Méndez, remembers, “My aunt took a Rosa Parks stand and said, ‘I’m not leaving my kids here if you don’t take my brother’s kids!’”

Although in many communities during that time, "Mexican-Americans were considered 'White' and typically unaffected by segregation laws . . . they still faced de facto segregation and anti-Mexican sentiment. In fact, the Mendez children had attended 'White schools' until they moved to Westminster. Also worth noting is that both Gonzalo and Felicitas were U.S. citizens. In fact, Felicitas was Puerto Rican, not Mexican. All of the Mendez children spoke fluent English," according to the Education Post.

Orange County was largely segregated, according to Gilbert Gonzalez, author of the book “Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation.” Public parks, swimming pools, restaurants and movie theaters were all segregated, and houses were often sold with racially restricted covenants, stipulating that the property could only be resold to whites.

School segregation first appeared in Orange County in 1919, and by the 1940s, more than 80% of students of Mexican heritage were attending separate schools from whites, said Gonzalez. The so-called Mexican schools were designed to Americanize the students — speaking Spanish was prohibited — and also to train boys for industrial work and agricultural labor and girls for housekeeping.

The "Mexican school" the school administer was referring to was further away from the family's home. It was "terrible" remembered Sylvia Méndez - "Besides the two wooden shacks, the books were 'hand-me-downs' and the desks were 'all falling apart.'" An electric fence — which she said shocked one of her classmates — separated the school from a neighboring cow pasture.

Felicitas and her husband "were appalled by this treatment of their kids. In response, they launched what turned out to be a groundbreaking civil rights case," according to writer Leticia Chavez-Garcia.

Méndez v . Westminster was filed in March of 1945 as a class-action lawsuit against four Orange County school districts.

"They argued that separate schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment," according to the Smithsonian.

The school district at first tried to compromise – if the parents dropped the suit, they’d allow the Méndez children to attend the white elementary school. Felicitas and her husband refused, "saying the the purpose of the lawsuit was to benefit the whole Mexican community, not just a handful of fortunate kids. Felicitas’s racialization informed her fight. In Arizona, people labeled her Black. While in California, they considered her Mexican," according to Fernández.

“We had to do it. Our children, all of our children, brown, Black, and white [“bronceados, negros y blancos”] must have the opportunity to be whatever they want to be, and education gives them that opportunity,” she said.

During the trial, the school also claimed that there was a "language issue", implying that the children could only speak Spanish. However, one of the children during the trial was asked to testify, proving that the children did speak English.

"In the final ruling in April 1946, the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld that segregation practices were unconstitutional and violated the 14th Amendment," wrote Fernández.

"In 1947 California Governor Earl Warren pushed through legislation, [making California the first state in the country to end school segregation]," according to the Smithsonian.

The case "attracted attention outside Orange County. Thurgood Marshall, who at the time was chief counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, wrote an amicus brief in support of Méndez. The Japanese American Citizens League, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the American Jewish Congress and the American Civil Liberties Union also lent their support," according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Méndez story is an American story, but one that was forgotten or denied. It was the story of one brave woman who had experienced racism all her life and just wanted the best for her children. It was a story that brought together historic figures like Thurgood Marshall [featured in previous Peace Page stories] and Earl Warren who would be instrumental in ending segregation in Brown vs. Board of Education. It even had the side story of a Japanese-American family, who leased their farm to the Méndez when they were sent to internment camps.

"They ultimately helped outlaw almost 100 years of segregation in California and set legal precedent for the Brown v. Board of Education case, filed seven years later," according to the Education Post.

Years later, Sylvia Méndez still remembers after they had won the case and she was able to finally attend that white school, when that white boy bullied her and sent her home crying.

She told her mother, Felicitas:

"Mother I don’t want to go to that white school. They don’t want us in that white school."

Her mother looked at her daughter and said, "Sylvia, don’t you realize why you were in court every day? Don’t you know what we were fighting for while we were in court?”

Sylvia said, "Yes, to get into that white school with that beautiful playground."

Her mother replied, "No, Sylvia. We weren’t fighting so you could go to that beautiful white school. We were fighting because you’re equal to that white boy.’”

"Méndez said that was the first time she understood the full weight of what her parents had achieved," according to the Los Angeles Times.

And, Sylvia did return to the school.

Years later, just before her mother died, she reminded her daughter, “We didn’t just do it for you, Sylvia. We did it for all the children…I think this is history of the United States and everybody should know about it, Sylvia . . . Sylvia, you have to go out and talk about it!’ ”

While Méndez was initially reluctant to take up her mother’s request, she relented and started a nationwide effort to educate the public about her parents’ activism," according to writer Caitlin Yoshiko Kandil.

"Felicitas died in 1998, just as the case started gaining recognition. In 2000, a new high school in Santa Ana was named after the family — the Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez Fundamental Intermediate School. Westminster native Sandra Robbie produced the Emmy Award-winning documentary 'Mendez v. Westminster: For All the Children' in 2002, and two years later, President George W. Bush invited the Mendez family to the White House for Hispanic Heritage Month. In 2007 the U.S. Postal Service issued a stamp commemorating the case," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Because of her instrumental role in the landmark case and her activism in telling her parents' story and educating others, Sylvia Méndez was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011 by President Obama.

Remembering what her mother and father fought for, Méndez, said, "This is the history of the United States, the history of California. Mendez isn’t just about Mexicans. It’s about everybody coming together. If you start fighting for justice, then people of all ethnicities will become involved.”

[Photo from Sylvia Méndez School]

[bellefrenchroleplays]

❝ i’ve looked close enough and i see you for what you are. ❞

A scoff left her, hardly phased by the biting words coming from her would-be nemesis. Belle wasn’t exactly the kind of person to have enemies; she was a friend for everyone and she tried her hardest to tolerate people even when they were annoying, simply for the sake of peace and not stooping to a lower level. She could breathe deeply and shake off any misogynist comments, or laugh off any comments about the age difference between her and her husband most of the time, and she’d even learnt how to tackle the difficult and crazy competitive waters of Eliza’s school PTA. She could handle all of that without getting worked up, but the sight of the woman who had abandoned her son and been nothing but cruel to the man she loved set her blood on fire.

They’d been warned, now that Neal was 15 and Milah had now served the 7 years she’d been sentenced to for her crimes, that she would be leaving prison. The terms of her release meant that she wasn’t allowed to contact them, not really, though they had been wary and warned their son of the development. A part of Belle had been absolutely terrified that the boy would want to see his biological mother, but he’d simply shrugged and claimed he didn’t give a damn where she was, as long as she wasn’t near him. That filled her with both relief and pride, and she’d hoped that would be the end of the whole issue. If she contacted them, she’d be violating her parole and they could get the law involved once more, but she’d doubted it, given the woman certainly didn’t have the funds to run in the same circles any more.

Belle hadn’t been counting on how small the world seemed to be, or Milah’s determination to get the last word against the people who’d apparently ruined her life. It didn’t matter that she’d abandoned her son in the middle of the night and left a 6 year old to his own devices with an unlocked door, it was apparently all Belle and Robbie’s fault. Now she was faced to face with the woman outside of a Starbucks, and her grip tightened on her polystyrene cup, resisting the urge to toss the hot coffee at the awful woman. Eliza had a grip on her other hand, and she was cautious, not wanting to have a full on fight in front of her impressionable 7 year old, but she sensed that her girl would probably join in on the lynching. 

It seemed she couldn’t let a grudge go, and she’d launched into a whole rant about Belle being a money grabbing harlot with daddy issues when Belle had plainly told her that she was the only mother Neal knew and he had no interest in seeing her. After all, Belle was pretty sure the only thing Milah would be interested in was Neal’s bank account and inheritance. 

‘‘What’s that, huh? A mother? A wife? Because that’s what I am. I am the woman that cared for a little boy who’d been abandoned and it was the best thing I ever did. You can hate me all you like, but I’m not letting you anywhere near my son.’‘ 

[isthatpinkeye-a-blog]

Heat of the Moment

@sonoftheinfamous

It had been on of those jobs he went with Duncan on as back up. Ones that started out seeming like nothing big, something they were absolutely capable of handling together with no problem. Robbie should have known better. He should have seen the signs, but he honestly thought he’d seen the last of Dr. Zabo, or at least seen the last of his fucking work. He was wrong.

The things these pills did to people was unreal and whether it was a group of them or Mister Hyde all on his own, it was overwhelming. And the times Robbie had faced off against this alone was hard to say the least. Though he’d had Duncan here with him now. While that made a difference, it wasn’t much. The two had barely made it out of the fight intact. Though in the end they’d managed to send Mister Hyde and his creeps packing, leaving them to retreat to lick their wounds.

Honestly Robbie hadn’t the energy to try and pursue them, which led to Robbie cursing and growling a lot. They’d gotten to an old abandoned warehouse, one so off the beaten path that even hobos and delinquents never came around. Both were in such shit shape and needed a moment to breathe and recuperate, but they needed to be alone, no surprises, nothing. It was just something Eli had managed to find, though a part of Robbie suspected it was more familiarity than he was letting one.

Both were worried about the other, adrenaline still running, the reality of near death for one or both of them still clear in their mind, and it just sparked something. It started with them needing to keep in constant physical contact, as if to be assured the other was still in fact alive and close by. Then it became Duncan needing to hold onto Robbie, and in turn Robbie needing to hold Duncan. Then things began escalating, it’s almost like the idea of nearly being beaten to a pulp had gotten them going, but it was more of a reminder that they could still die, one could lose the other, and it just sparked and ignited a flame (literally and figuratively). Groping, fabric tearing, things being singed, biting...

And before long Duncan was aware that in his Rider form, Robbie definitely did not suffer from any kind of Ken Doll problem. Apparently it just needed to be coaxed out of the Rider’s anatomy, and it certainly had been. Like the rest of him it was pitch black, holding this almost soft satin like texture to it like the type of finish some business cards or the higher end sex toys, which was a huge contrast to the rest of his reformed skin which was like leather.

It definitely gave Duncan as run for his money in terms of length and girth, seems that Robbie’s height wasn’t the only thing that increased when his change. Normally foreplay happened between these two, but with no actual lubricant and Robbie being incapable of such things that would help with that in this form, it was lucky Duncan wanted to at least taste it for a moment, his saliva coating it.

It didn’t take long though for the Rider to have his boyfriend slammed against dirty wall, strong legs wrapped around the sleek black waist, one black arm wrapped around Duncan’s waist to secure him, one hand above Duncan’s head to steady himself against the wall, and that long, thick, veiny, throbbing, pitch black cock driving in and out of Duncan fast and hard. Those jagged teeth clamped down at the joint of Duncan’s neck and left shoulder almost possessively. They’d survived, together, and god if it didn’t want to make them fuck like this to prove they were still alive.

As that large black cock rushed in and out of Duncan, he’d feel every pronounced vein and subtle throb of the heated cock as it violated him and stretched farther than he’d probably ever been. It would almost feel hot inside of him, not quite painful but bordering between a pleasant warmth and an overwhelming heat. Though honestly that probably only added to things for Duncan. Each thrust was harsh and dominating and possessive, each time the Rider made a point to completely sheath himself inside of his lover, making Duncan take every bit of him to the hilt.

Luckily this build was made during a time when large factories has to be a little more than fire resistant, as harsh flames poured out of the exhausts and blowers on Robbie’s skull as well as the corners of his sockets and sometimes from his mouth.

It was clear that the Rider was doing everything to claim and mark his boyfriend, to show Duncan was his and no one else’s.

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

The essential list of Trump trolls, from the NSFW to the out of this world

There's one thing you can say about our current president: It's definitely easy to troll him. It's almost harder not to troll him at this point. 

SEE ALSO: Watch Trump's ridiculous tweets transform into poetry before your eyes

And there have been some great ones over the past few years, like when Gawker's Ashley Feinberg managed to get Trump to retweet a Mussolini quote. Or the time Deadspin just went all in with some 🔥🔥🔥 .

Since the inauguration, the troll train has been full steam ahead, with the most recent in the line catching our attention in — ahem — entirely new ways. 

What better time to look back on the best trolls of our 45th president since his inauguration than now, as we head into the Independence Day holiday?

1. Pressing the Fleshlight

Buzzfeed writer Jesse McLaren gets points for being super subtle with this one. A quick glance and you wouldn't even notice the sex toy hidden on the shelf behind Trump's Oval Office desk, casually blending in with assorted trophies and knickknacks. 

I photoshopped a flesh-light into the background of this photo please RT so one day it accidentally get's used in an article. pic.twitter.com/HdDNMTYkDu

— Jesse McLaren (@McJesse) June 27, 2017

2. Getting real about Time

That fake Time magazine that the Washington Post discovered on the walls of Trump golf clubs is sure something. A lot of people got in on the trolling action, including one Virginia congressman, but nothing tops a cartoon from the New Yorker, a publication that's been pretty clear on its stance on Trump from the beginning. 

Today's daily cartoon by John Mavroudis. See more cartoons here: https://t.co/y2VewFsZHF pic.twitter.com/mRyREUDgTA

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) June 29, 2017

3. "Real Fake" is really real

An easy way to troll Trump is to hit him where it hurts, like in front of his gleaming tower along the river in downtown Chicago. Fake news? Real news? What is life anyway? Life is strolling along the Chicago Riverwalk near the Trump Tower and happening to run into a sculpture that says "Real Fake" which doesn't have anything to do with Chicago Mayor (and Obama ally) Rahm Emanuel. Not at all. 

I believe we've hit peak-level trolling. pic.twitter.com/Zvc5lm1FDT

— Anthony M. Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) June 27, 2017

4. Turning Trump into a poet

To celebrate how truly bizarre most of Trump’s tweets are, Reddit user Darby Crash recently created "Poet in Chief" — an algorithm-run generator that turns President Trump's 140-character messages into literary masterpieces. Users can click on individual poetry lines and be transported to Trump’s original tweets. Try out the trolling yourself!

Image: MASHABLE COMPOSITE: TOM PENNINGTON/GETTY IMAGES AND EMOJIPEDIA

5. Macron, thy mortal enemy

It took a few months, but Trump finally has a nemesis willing to go one-on-one with him on a global stage. It's France's new president Emmanuel Macron, who won't just out-macho Trump's handshake, but will also recruit action film legend (and former GOP governor!) Arnold Schwarzenegger to troll Trump on his decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. Note the high-level troll-appropriation of Trump's own (silly) slogan.

I was truly honored to meet with President @EmmanuelMacron about how we can work together for a clean energy future. He's a great leader. pic.twitter.com/MSoxjIruup

— Arnold (@Schwarzenegger) June 23, 2017

6. JK Rowling and Stephen King tag team POTUS

JK Rowling brings pure magic to Twitter feeds with each and every Trump troll. The Harry Potter author never holds back, and on occasion, even joins forces with another awesome human, like — oh, say — Stephen King, to take down the U.S. president. When King discovered Trump had blocked him on Twitter, Rowling stepped in to lend support. If you want more epic shade from these pals, here’s a scathing selection of J.K. Rowling's most brutal Trump burns, and Stephen King's. 

Trump has blocked me from reading his tweets. I may have to kill myself.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) June 13, 2017

I still have access. I'll DM them to you. https://t.co/MhibEYDBTg

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 13, 2017

.@StephenKing On a sliding scale of Annie Wilkes to Cujo, what level of delusion do you reckon we're at today? pic.twitter.com/vmPwdS47Ks

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 15, 2017

7. A glass of shade on the rocks

Smirnoff’s icy-cold new ad campaign trolls President Trump in the least subtle of ways. In the aftermath of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony, the company decided to promote its American-made vodka by sending up Trump's alleged ties to Russia. Trump claimed several of Comey's accusations (made under oath, BTW) were completely false and said he'd be 100 percent willing to share his account of what happened under oath. Smirnoff then created the following ad:

Smirnoff's new ad campaign pic.twitter.com/IPEwbLJFlq

— Robbie Gramer (@RobbieGramer) June 11, 2017

8. "Cryin' Chuck" weighs in

Don't think that Trump's political opponents are holding back, either. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) certainly had some fun at Trump's expense after the absurd pageantry of that first big Trump cabinet meeting in which Trump was heralded as a glorious leader. Schumer and his staff decided to hold their own little ceremony of praise. 

GREAT meeting today with the best staff in the history of the world!!! pic.twitter.com/ocE1xhEAac

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

9. Tim Cook takes a bite out of Trump

Sure, Tim Cook might act (mostly) diplomatic at those tech summits, but he's thinking the same Trump Twitter jokes as the rest of us. Like this zinger he delivered while making the commencement speech at MIT's graduation. 

10. An out-of-this-world Trump troll

Yes, Trump got trolled from space because the limit does not exist. A French astronaut who lived in space for 196 days had a lovely tweet to send Trump upon his return to Earth. He threw shade at the president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement by sharing a photo of the agreement floating on the International Space Station (ISS), and referencing Trump’s slogan in his hashtag.

I took the #ParisAgreement to the ISS: from space, climate change is very real. Some could probably use the view #MakeOurPlanetGreatAgain pic.twitter.com/0AuMTr9J39

— Thomas Pesquet (@Thom_astro) June 6, 2017

11. Raining on Trump’s climate-change denial parade

Ahead of Donald Trump's declaration that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, Weather.com’s forecast called for heavy shade. The IBM-owned Weather Company transformed its homepage into a scorching hot message for Trump about the reality of climate change. Headlines like "Still Don't Care? Proof You Should Care Now" put climate-change deniers in their places in a refreshingly unique way.

Hey @weatherchannel — I see you. Wow. pic.twitter.com/wOWEop67Qj

— Scott Gustin (@ScottGustin) June 1, 2017

12. Pay bribes here!

We already know trolling Trump at his places of business is one sure way for publicity. Another target was his posh D.C. hotel that coincidentally hosted a big re-election fundraiser for Trump on Wednesday. D.C. artist Robin Bell, who would subsequently target Jeff Sessions, projected phrases like "Pay bribes here!" and "Emoluments Welcome" onto the Trump hotel. 

Right now at Trump's DC hotel! pic.twitter.com/95cwrUmbmF

— igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) May 16, 2017

13. Bigly ethics violations?

Trump was only in office for a few months before he raised the ire of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which has already had its hands full with the Trump White House. The OGE tweeted out a reminder about ethical loyalty shortly after reports surfaced that said Trump demanded loyalty from now-fired FBI head James Comey, a saga that continues to stretch on. 

pic.twitter.com/Cdmlta2ecl

— U.S. OGE (@OfficeGovEthics) May 12, 2017

14. The tweet came from (near) space!

Before Trump upset astronauts by pulling out of the Paris agreement, the president had already been hit with a troll from above. The Autonomous Space Agency Network, amateurs who promote DIY space exploration, released their own shot at Trump via a printed tweet on a weather balloon. It didn't quite make it to space, but it's close enough. 

.@realDonaldTrump: LOOK AT THAT, YOU SON OF A BITCHhttps://t.co/Vu7q2j8g1t pic.twitter.com/EU1obtes4q

— ASAN (@ASANspace) April 12, 2017

15. Trump Draws

One of the best one-stop Twitter accounts that hilariously sends up the president is Trump Draws, which mocks Trump's love of himself, attention, and maybe not having the most bigly intellect. 

tapes pic.twitter.com/EYKHaGE1Lh

— Trump Draws (@TrumpDraws) June 22, 2017

16. Clinton's revenge

Both Hillary and Chelsea Clinton have taken plenty of shots at Trump since the election. Some might say they're being sore losers, while others point out the popular vote totals. 

Of course @HillaryClinton has a theory about #covfefe pic.twitter.com/Dr5rcUCFZy

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) May 31, 2017

17. The best words!

Merriam-Webster’s official Twitter account has become a crucial member of Trump’s die-hard group of trollers. The dictionary continually corrects Trump’s bigly word mishaps by defining the most-searched terms related to Trump. For instance, whenever Trump spells the word “council” incorrectly, Merriam-Webster is there. And when he created “covfefe”? Forget about it. Since his inauguration, the dictionary has also trolled Kellyanne Conway’s “alternate facts” remark, and Ivanka Trump’s use of "complicit," proving that no one in the administration is safe.

'Councel' is by far our most looked up misspelling today.

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) May 18, 2017

18. Trolling from the other side of the pond 

Trump's treatment of our allies has been a significant storyline of his presidency, but it's not like Europe is ignoring Trump. Not long after Trump's inauguration, the cheeky Dutch used a parody of a tourism video to take potshots at the new U.S. president. Several countries wound up following their lead. 

19. Late night drama

Late Night hosts take the political shade to a whole other level. Who could forget Stephen Colbert’s Emmy hosting announcement in which he mocked the Trump administration's false claims about inauguration attendance. “This will be the largest audience to witness an Emmys, period,” Colbert said in a statement. “Both in person and around the globe.” The late night show shade has been so strong who could even recall every troll? But recently Colbert and Seth Rogen joined forces to slide into Donald Trump Jr.’s DMs. A family that gets trolled together stays together, maybe?

20. Souza shades like no other

Perhaps the ultimate Trump trolling master is the Insta-famous former White House photographer of Barack Obama, Pete Souza. Souza watches Trump like a hawk with his photo archive at the ready, just waiting to revive the hundreds of stunning shots he’s taken of Obama to show the contrasts in their leadership. Each Souza troll — from Trump’s visit with the Pope to his Paris Climate Agreement decision — includes a fierce caption. Let us admire one of the greatest posts: Souza’s response to Trump refusing to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand at their White House meeting.

First time meeting Angela Merkel in 2009

A post shared by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:54pm PDT

Additional reporting from Suzanne Ciechalski

WATCH: Are these tweets by Trump or a troll? Adam Pally is on the case.

[hollywoodjuliorivas]

Starr Chamber: The Sequel

President Trump reaches deep into the perv barrel for his defense team.

Maureen Dowd

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist

Jan. 18, 2020

1038

Ken Starr in January 1999, during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Ken Starr in January 1999, during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.Credit...David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

Can a woman be president of the United States?

Hell, yes.

I’ve covered the men who run the world my whole life. And there have been a lot of screw-ups, from Vietnam to Watergate to Afghanistan to Iraq to pushing the economy off a cliff. There has also been plenty of creepy behavior, culminating in the news that Donald Trump, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz have joined together in a pervy, hypocritical cabal to argue that Trump did not smirch the Constitution.

So please, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, stop whingeing about sexism and just show how you could wield power like a boss. Ibid: Nancy Pelosi.

When Steve Bannon called Pelosi a “total assassin,” according to the hot new book “A Very Stable Genius,” by Washington Post writers Phil Rucker and Carol Leonnig, he meant it as the highest compliment. You won’t find Pelosi keening about gender; she’s too busy taking care of business.

Hillary Clinton did not lose because she was a woman. She faced sexism, of course, just as Barack Obama faced racism. She lost because she ran an entitled, joyless, nose-in-the air campaign and because she didn’t emulate her husband’s ethos of campaign ’til the last dog dies and the last bowling alley closes, and always make it about the voters. She lost because she and her campaign manager, Robby Mook, didn’t listen to Bill Clinton, the world’s leading expert on the white, male, rural vote, when he warned them that there was trouble and offered to help out.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Donald Trump operates from the id, which is fitting because he represents a last-gasp primal scream from working-class Americans threatened by the changes transforming the country. Women are now a majority of the work force and whites are heading toward a minority status. Hollywood cannot cling to its benighted — and self-defeating — desire to stay a white male club forever, despite the fact that women have always made up half the audience.

Trump’s ascent does not make it harder for women to ascend — just the opposite. Look at the throng of women who were outraged enough about Trump to march and run and get elected in 2018.

Once a woman electrifies Democrats the way J.F.K., Bill Clinton and Obama did — and the way Trump does his base — she will win.

Trump is once more doing his part to energize women voters. On Friday, we learned that the president will get help from Starr and Dershowitz for the impeachment trial in the Senate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

The Starr chamber was a shameful period of American history, with the prissy Puritan independent counsel hounding and virtually jailing Monica Lewinsky and producing hundreds of pages of panting, bodice-ripping prose that read more like bad erotica than a federal report, rife with lurid passages about breasts, stains and genitalia. Like the Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale and other Pharisaic Holy Rollers before him, the prosecutor who read the Bible and sang hymns when he jogged became fixated on sex in an unhealthy, warped way.

Even Trump was appalled. “Starr’s a freak,” the bloviating builder told me back in 1999. “I bet he’s got something in his closet.” In other interviews, he called Starr “a lunatic,” “a disaster” and “off his rocker,” and expressed sympathy for Hillary having to stand by her man when he was “being lambasted by this crazy Ken Starr, who is a total wacko.”

Starr, who once clutched his pearls over Bill Clinton’s sexual high jinks, is now going to bat for President “Access Hollywood.” After playing an avenging Javert about foreplay in the Oval, Starr will now do his utmost to prove that a real abuse of power undermining Congress and American foreign policy is piffle.

In 2007, he defended Jeffrey Epstein. By 2016, Starr was being ousted as president of Baptist Baylor University for failing to protect women and looking the other way when football players were accused and sometimes convicted of sexual assaults. In other words, he’s a complete partisan hack who doesn’t give a damn about sexual assault.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

And then there’s Dershowitz, whose past clients have included such sterling fellows as Epstein, Claus von Bülow, O.J. Simpson and Harvey Weinstein. How did he miss Ted Bundy? Still, Dershowitz has put himself on the side of an impressive pantheon of villainy in the realm of violence against girls and women.

Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew’s accuser, has also claimed that she was offered as a teenager to Dershowitz for sex — a contention that Dershowitz has denied in a countersuit.

On Fox News, Dershowitz has made the case that it is Pelosi who put herself above the law by delaying the delivery of the articles of impeachment. Good luck with that one.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, a few days ago deemed that Trump’s slimy Ukraine gambit violated a law. Yet Dershowitz will somehow argue that it doesn’t represent high crimes and misdemeanors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

He tweeted that he’s nonpartisan because he opposed Bill’s impeachment and voted for Hillary, even as he joined up with Bill’s persecutor. Dershowitz said that he is participating “to defend the integrity of the Constitution.”

That assertion may fly in Foxworld. But in the real world, it’s ridiculous. You can bet that Trump and his buddies will continue to turn out the women’s vote.

[fullspectrum-cbd-oil]

Pelosi Takes Heat After Wondering What the ‘Point’ of Enforcing Our Interior Immigration Laws Is

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) got torn into on Twitter after asking what the “point” was of enforcing interior immigration laws and claiming that a person’s illegal immigration status does not constitute their deportation.

While discussing immigration policy during an event in New York on Monday, Pelosi — first elected to the House in 1987 — claimed that she believed President Donald Trump‘s postponed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids were “outside the circle of civilized human behavior” and “appalling.”

She then questioned what the “point” was of enforcing “interior” immigration laws.

Watch the video here:

var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_1197719_1", "obj": {"id":"12036","stats":{"wp":1},"video":"432532","width":"662","height":"372"} });

  “We have legislation to go forward to address those needs, but in terms of interior enforcement, what’s the – what’s the point?” Pelosi asked.

While discussing her phone call with the president last week regarding his planned ICE raids, the speaker also claimed during the event that an individual’s “violation of status” did not serve as a “reason” to deport them from the country:

“So that is really kind of what happened. He didn’t say what he was going to do, but the president said, ‘Oh, I’ll let you know, I’ll let you know.’ Went into, ‘Well, people broke the laws.’ A violation of status is not a reason for deportation. That’s just not so.”

Watch below:

var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_1197719_2", "obj": {"id":"12036","stats":{"wp":1},"video":"432533","width":"662","height":"372"} });

  Under U.S. law, a person who has overstayed their visa — people who accounted for 62 percent of undocumented immigrants from 2016-2017 — for more than 180 days will face deportation proceedings.

Some users on Twitter were not impressed with what the speaker said, calling her out for her “total, utter nonsense.”

Nancy Pelosi says “a violation of status is not a reason for deportation”

This has always been a valid reason for deportation. Weird how the rules change for @realDonaldTrump but not a peep from Dems like Nancy when Obama deported status violators. pic.twitter.com/VoavwMFOFN

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) June 24, 2019

Nancy Pelosi really just claimed entering the Country illegally doesn’t justify deportation…

Does she even hear what she’s saying anymore?

This is total, utter nonsense ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/nNKaBjPAJS

— Students For Trump (@TrumpStudents) June 24, 2019

WATCH: Speaker Pelosi says a violation of status is not grounds for deportation.

The radical leftists have taken over her party. AOC, Rashida and Ilhan are the real voices in control.

Nancy Pelosi has totally lost control! pic.twitter.com/EdkJI6jQUw

— ACT for America (@ACTforAmerica) June 24, 2019

Nancy Pelosi on enforcing immigration law: "What is the point?"

The Democrats want to tear down existing walls, our institutions, and the rule of lawpic.twitter.com/8gVpdnGNmd

— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) June 24, 2019

The speaker’s comments came the same day that she agreed to hold a vote on border legislation to provide aid to alleviate the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

As IJR Red previously reported, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway called on Pelosi and the House Democrats to do “their job” and address the nation’s “broken” immigration policy.

from IJR http://bit.ly/2YcalMb via IFTTT

[go-redgirl]

Trump Promises Executive Order Denying Funds to Anti-Free Speech Universities Frontpagemagazine ^ | March 4, 2019 | Matthew Vadum

Students must be free to challenge “ridiculous and dangerous ideas,” Trump tells CPAC.

President Trump vowed to issue an executive order protecting free speech at America’s universities Saturday as he invited Hayden Williams, a conservative victim of leftist violence on campus, to share the stage with him at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference.

“We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous,” Trump said March 2 in a speech that was interrupted by chants of “USA! USA! USA!” “Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.”

“Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants.”

“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be very costly,” he said. “Every day we’re restoring common sense and the timeless values that unite us all. We believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.”

The president did not provide details about the upcoming executive order. Robby Soave of Reason reports that “an official with knowledge of the executive order confirmed … that a draft exists. Indeed, the plan is to penalize universities that do not protect free speech by taking away their federal grants.”

The announcement came after student leaders from a group of taxpayer-funded universities in Kentucky urged state lawmakers to approve legislation to protect free speech on campus. A letter to lawmakers was signed by 18 student leaders, including representatives of College Republicans, Young Americans for Liberty, and the Council on Post-Secondary Education. “Across the country, speech codes have been used against students of all parts of the political spectrum,” the letter states.

Williams, a field representative for the grassroots conservative training academy, the Arlington, Va.-based Leadership Institute, briefly joined Trump on the dais at CPAC in a National Harbor, Maryland hotel a few miles from the nation’s capital.

“It’s great that I’m being recognized … but there’s so many conservative students across the country who are facing discrimination, harassment, and worse if they dare to speak up on campus,” said Williams, a black eye visible on his face.

“So I’m glad that we could we could bring this to the forefront and I'd just like to say if these socialist progressives had their way they would put our Constitution through the paper shredder in a heartbeat. So it’s as important now [as] ever, the work at Leadership Institute and Campus Reform, exposing these liberal abuses to the public.”

Williams, 26, was coldcocked Feb. 19 when he was allegedly assaulted by Zachary Greenberg, 28, at the University of California, Berkeley.

At the time Williams was assisting the campus chapter of Turning Point USA at that group’s recruiting table. Turning Point strongly backs Trump. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., headlined the group’s event, “AmericaFest,” on the first night of CPAC, Feb. 28.

Although the attack was captured on video, Berkeley officials abruptly dropped an investigation into the assault and then re-opened it under pressure from conservatives who claimed officials weren’t taking the matter seriously because the victim was a conservative activist. Greenberg was arrested March 1 and charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to cause great bodily injury. His bail was set at $30,000. He is scheduled to appear in court March 4, Fox News reports.

In his animated, well-received address to CPAC that lasted more than two hours –reportedly the longest of his presidency— Trump urged Williams to file suit against his attacker and the authorities.

“Sue him. But he's probably got nothing but sue him forever. But sue the college, the university, and maybe sue the state. Ladies and gentlemen, he took a hard punch in the face for all of us. Remember that. He took a punch for all of us.”

That may be good advice.

In December, UC Berkeley agreed to compensate Young America’s Foundation (YAF) and Berkeley College Republicans for trampling the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of conservative speakers and students on its campus. 

The Trump administration sided with campus conservatives against the school. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on behalf of the two groups. The department “will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.

When conservatives had been scheduled to speak on campus, the campus administration typically didn’t forbid their appearances. Instead, it made the speeches inconvenient to the point of impossibility, for example, forcing students to use venues a mile off campus or at times when students couldn’t attend. Berkeley also often required non-leftist groups to hand over thousands of dollars to defray security costs, a requirement not rigorously or consistently imposed on left-wing speakers or groups.

An aggressive crackdown on non-leftist speech came after Berkeley officials—emboldened by a violent Antifa mob blocking a Feb. 1, 2017 campus appearance by firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos—decided to formalize viewpoint discrimination in the school’s policy on speakers.

Around that time, Trump threatened to withhold federal funds from Berkeley.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump tweeted Feb. 2, 2017.

The speech, which was sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center (publisher of FrontPage), never happened. Police stood down and allowed left-wing students and activists to “no-platform” Yiannopoulos because they didn’t like his views. Demonstrators caused $100,000 in damage to the campus and several times as much damage to the surrounding town.

The continuing threat of violence by Antifa at Berkeley also led to the cancelation of a planned on-campus premiere of a documentary film this writer executive-produced, America Under Siege: Antifa, during Yiannopoulos’s planned Free Speech Week at the school.

Under the terms of the out-of-court settlement attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon reached with Berkeley, the university was to pay YAF $70,000, rescind its unconstitutional “high-profile speaker policy,” rescind its viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy, and abolish its heckler’s veto—protesters are no longer allowed to shut down conservative expression.

Berkeley is no longer able to impose a 3:00 p.m. curfew on conservative speech. Nor is it allowed to ban advertisements for YAF-sponsored campus lectures or relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving leftist speakers access to preferred locations.

At CPAC, Trump praised the conservative activists in the audience.

“Young Americans like you are leading the revival of American liberty sovereignty and self-determination in the face of left-wing intolerance. 

The anger, the unbelievable anger. I see it every day. Fortunately for you it's mostly pointed at me. You have the courage to speak the truth. To do what is right. And to fight for what you believe and keep doing it.”

[duaneodavila]

The Narcissism Of The Platform Hijacker

What does actress Jenna Fischer from The Office have to do with racism? The initial responce would likely be, “nothing, as far as I’m aware,” but that’s likely because you’re not sufficiently woke to connect the invisible dots. Fischer, herself, may have nothing whatsoever to do with racism, but she draws people’s attention because of her celebrity. And that’s close enough.

Several dozen students interrupted an event featuring actress Jenna Fischer at DePauw University Tuesday to protests recent racial incidents on and near campus.

Many of them held signs with things claiming they are “afraid for their lives” after recent events.

If you think cops these days are too afraid, it’s nothing compared with students, who function under the belief that a word will break their bones.

University Spokesman Ken Owen, who was moderating the lecture with Fischer, said about 15 minutes into the program a group of students got up and began interrupting the event whistling, shouting and saying they were afraid for their safety on campus because of the recent racial incidents.

Last week, a hateful message was found written in a bathroom at the university. The message, which read ” All ******* must die -KKK,” was written on a bathroom wall of the Inn at DePauw, a public building on campus. Another [sic] anti-Semitic and homophobic messages were also found.

Whether this was protest worthy, or “afraid for their lives” worthy, they still took over Jenna Fischer’s stage for their own purposes because if they had thrown a protest of their own, no one would have come, seen, listened or cared. So they had to take her, and that, alone, is what Jenna Fischer had to do with racism.

And the putative grown-ups at DePauw failed to consider that these teary students hijacked Jenna Fischer’s stage for their own purposes.

Today, students in our community, exercising their right to be heard, expressed their fear and frustration during a community leaders’ meeting this afternoon and a celebrity guest lecture this evening.

Did they apologize to Jenna Fischer for putting her in the middle of this? Not exactly.

Students who need support or a space to gather together can go to the Hartman House or Center for Diversity and Inclusion.

Okay, not at all. But this is DePauw University, a small private liberal arts college in Indiana. Surely this wouldn’t happen at an elite university. Like, say, Duke?

Two dozen student activists crashed an alumni event at Duke University on Saturday, using a megaphone to make their demands and drown out the speaker, Duke President Vincent Price.

Another stage. Another event. And most significantly, an event having absolutely nothing to do with their protests, but merely an opportunity to hijack the stage for their own purposes. Ironically, the alumni even was to celebrate the 50th Anniversity of another protest.*

The protest happened during an alumni event reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the 1968 Silent Vigil at Duke, a series of student-led sit-ins on campus. Nuzzolillo and his comrades sought to channel the spirit of the Silent Vigil, although their protest was anything but silent. About 25 students stormed the stage inside Page Auditorium while Price was speaking and chanted, “President Price get off the stage,” and “Whose university? Our university,” until they had command of the room. Then they read a list of demands, which included raising the university’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, hiring more faculty members of color, and spending more money on counseling services.

Did they steal the right stage? If the alums were there to remember an old protest, wouldn’t they certainly support a new one, including shouting off the stage the person they were there to hear? Kinda like coming to hear Cream play White Room and being forced to endure Mötley Crüe doing Girls, Girls, Girls** instead.

The students were surprised to discover that their interruption had irritated many alumni in the audience, some of whom heckled the activists and turned their backs while the demands were read.

Not that young people are a bit narcissistic and entitled, operating under the certainty that no one could possibly not desire to hear their every idea, and obviously support them in their fight, but the alumni weren’t nearly as supportive as the students expected.

Even more shocking was that the administration failed to provide the protesters with puppies and Play-Doh.

The protesters received mixed reactions from the alumni in the audience. Some alumni did nothing while others booed loudly or clapped in support. Many alumni stood up and turned their backs to the stage, some shouting vulgarities—the protesters reported hearing racial epithets.

The protesters noted that they were surprised by the extent of the alumni’s negative reactions. [Student organizer Bryce] Cracknell added that he was disappointed that the administrators focused more on stopping the students than angry alumni, Cracknell said.

“Instead of actually going to the alumni and saying ‘that’s not appropriate’ or removing them from the space, they were more worried about us,” Cracknell said.

Just so it doesn’t slide past too quickly, student organizer Cracknell’s dismay was that the administration didn’t remove the alumni from the space, the one that was for the alums and which Cracknell hijacked, for being to disrespectful to the hijackers.

Protest “leader” Gina Nuzzolillo expressed disappointment that the adults “whose job it is to care for us” failed to do so. Or as Robby Soave puts it:

They want to be celebrated as resistance fighters and treated like trauma victims. The student activists of 2018 require a lot of hand holding as they overthrow their oppressors.

And they want to do so on somebody else’s platform, because they would otherwise be protesting in a room empty but for the puppies.

*One might, if one connects the invisible dots, see an attenuated analogy between the Silent Vigil of 1968, following the assassination of Martin Luther King, with today’s students protesting today’s issues. But “channeling the spirit” is a euphemistic way of saying hijacking, and the dots don’t connect at all.

**Uh oh.

Copyright © 2007-2018 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. The use of this feed anywhere else violates copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it means the page you are viewing infringes copyright. (Digital Fingerprint: 51981395c77d7762065ca2c084b63e47) The Narcissism Of The Platform Hijacker republished via Simple Justice

[thedeadshotnetwork]

Your cell phone knows where you are at all times — and a Supreme Court case could keep police from knowing, too Alex Wong/Getty Images A Supreme Court case on an armed robby has the potential to shape the lives of Americans everywhere. The case concerns whether police are able to track people's location through their cell phones. Laws on wiretapping warrants and privacy have often not advanced with the pace of technology. A man named Timothy Carpenter planned and participated in several armed robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio between 2010 and 2012. He was caught, convicted and sentenced to 116 years in federal prison. His appeal, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 29, will shape the life of every American for years to come – no matter which way it’s decided. During its investigation of the robberies, the FBI got records not only of the phone calls made and received by Carpenter’s cellphone, but also its location over 127 days . The information clearly placed Carpenter’s phone nearby at the times and places of each of the robberies, providing strong circumstantial evidence against him. But it also revealed other information unrelated to the investigation, such as which nights Carpenter slept at home and what church he prayed in on Sunday mornings. The FBI didn’t get a search warrant for that information; the agency just asked Carpenter’s cell service provider , MetroPCS, for the data. Carpenter is appealing his conviction on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an unreasonable search was violated because his cellphone location was tracked without a search warrant. If you have a cellphone, what the Supreme Court decides will affect you. As part of providing their services, cellphone companies know where their users are. Mobile phones connect to nearby towers , which have separate antennas pointing different directions . Noting which antennas on which towers a particular phone connects to allows the phone company to triangulate a fairly precise location. In addition, technological advances are allowing cell towers to serve smaller and smaller areas. That means connected users are in even more specific locations. The FCC actually requires phone companies to be able to locate most cellphones within 50 meters when they call 911, to be able to direct emergency responders to the correct location. Keeping up with tech trends Susan Walsh/AP It is in the public’s interest for police to be able to track, catch and convict criminals. But to protect innocent citizens from harassment, the Bill of Rights established a process requiring investigators to get a judge’s signoff before conducting most searches for evidence. Early in the 20th century, courts thought phone wiretaps didn’t require a warrant as long as the physical wiretap equipment was placed outside a target’s home. Over time, the importance of the telephone as a communications medium and the rise of the internet led to the increased protections provided by the 1986 Stored Communications Act. That law clarified constitutional procedure for the telephone age. Under the law, police need a warrant to tap a person’s phone and listen to all his conversations. Without a warrant, officers can see what numbers a phone called , what numbers called that phone and when and how long the conversations lasted – but cannot eavesdrop on what was said. Those rules have not been updated for the age of the mobile phone. As a result, a legal principle called the “ third party doctrine ” applies in Carpenter’s case – and in dozens , if not hundreds, of others. It says that if a person gives someone else a piece of information, that knowledge is no longer considered private. In practice, it seems straightforward: If you tell a friend what you did last night, you can’t later stop your friend from telling the police what you said. And in fact, the Supreme Court has held that your friend could wear a “wire” so that the police can listen in, without a warrant and without informing you . The way this plays out regarding the location of a cellphone is the assumption that by carrying a cellphone – which communicates on its own with the phone company – you have effectively told the phone company where you are. Therefore, your location isn’t private, and the police can get that information from the cellphone company without a warrant, and without even telling you they’re tracking you. This assumption is what Carpenter’s appeal is challenging. Cell phones and privacy Scott Morgan/Reuters I have been at the leading edge of data science for over 30 years. Based on my work on the ethics of data science , I believe the assumptions that were safe in 1986 – when almost nobody had cellphones and nearly all telephones were landlines serving fixed locations – are no longer reasonable. Back then, the information a phone user revealed to a phone company was very limited. Today, people disclose their location all the time, for routine, law-abiding activities, by carrying around cellphones. Cellphone companies can know not only whom you call and for how long you speak, but where you are when you make the call, where you go in between calls and much more. They can deduce even more information , such as individuals’ religious affiliations and any number of personal habits that might be better kept secret – including how often an employee uses the restroom during a workday. It makes no practical sense to claim a person could protect the privacy of their location and movements by not carrying a cellphone: The social and economic burden that would impose on each person would be too high. This threat to privacy goes well beyond mobile phones: Automated license plate readers on bridges, roadsides and even police cars can easily record the identity of every vehicle, confirming its presence at a specific location at a particular time. A privacy-conscious person might give up driving, and instead rely on walking and taking public transportation. Cameras on the streets, at bus stops and in transit vehicles – coupled with tremendous recent advances in face recognition technology – can still track every move you make. Personal health devices collect a great deal of information about users to help them achieve fitness goals, and may even be useful to provide early diagnosis of diseases. But information from a pacemaker has already been used to charge an alleged arsonist , and a Fitbit helped solve a murder . Companies that provide internet service can learn a great deal about their customers simply by observing what websites users connect to, even if they don’t read the contents of each web page or email message. As electronic personal assistants (like Siri and Alexa) and home devices (like Nest) become more common and used more heavily, they will soon learn even more intimate details about people’s lives. Declining to provide information to these “third party” service providers would require people to opt out of normal life – which isn’t really a choice. Companies and their users' data Snap Most Americans don’t want their mobile phone companies to just hand over to police the enormous amount of information cellphones can reveal – at least not without getting a warrant first. But Americans’ privacy problem goes much deeper. Most people also don’t want their mobile phone companies to sell these data to others. Many companies may seek that information to try to persuade more customers to buy their products, but nefarious uses are also possible. A person could be blackmailed with a threat of publicizing their (completely lawful) secrets – such as a particular health condition, religious affiliation or sexual preference. Today, the protection people get goes only as far as the fine print of each service’s privacy policy . When a company goes out of business, its creditors try to make money from its assets – including data collected from and about its users. That is why I have called for companies to take the Data Destruction Pledge , promising that all customer data will be destroyed if the company ceases operation. The FBI found Timothy Carpenter because one of his accomplices told them about him. I believe the FBI could have obtained a search warrant to track Carpenter, if agents had applied for one. Instead, federal agents got cellphone location data not just for Carpenter, but for 15 other people , most of whom were not charged with any crime. One of them could be you, and you’d likely never know it . The more people rely on external devices whose basic functions record and transmit important data about their lives, the more critical it becomes for everyone to have real protection for their private data stored on and communicated by these devices. NOW WATCH: Here’s why your jeans have that tiny front pocket December 4, 2017 at 03:09PM

[tortuga-aak]

Your cell phone knows where you are at all times — and a Supreme Court case could keep police from knowing, too

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A Supreme Court case on an armed robby has the potential to shape the lives of Americans everywhere.

The case concerns whether police are able to track people's location through their cell phones.

Laws on wiretapping warrants and privacy have often not advanced with the pace of technology.

A man named Timothy Carpenter planned and participated in several armed robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio between 2010 and 2012. He was caught, convicted and sentenced to 116 years in federal prison.

His appeal, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 29, will shape the life of every American for years to come – no matter which way it’s decided.

During its investigation of the robberies, the FBI got records not only of the phone calls made and received by Carpenter’s cellphone, but also its location over 127 days. The information clearly placed Carpenter’s phone nearby at the times and places of each of the robberies, providing strong circumstantial evidence against him.

But it also revealed other information unrelated to the investigation, such as which nights Carpenter slept at home and what church he prayed in on Sunday mornings. The FBI didn’t get a search warrant for that information; the agency just asked Carpenter’s cell service provider, MetroPCS, for the data.

Carpenter is appealing his conviction on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an unreasonable search was violated because his cellphone location was tracked without a search warrant. If you have a cellphone, what the Supreme Court decides will affect you.

As part of providing their services, cellphone companies know where their users are. Mobile phones connect to nearby towers, which have separate antennas pointing different directions. Noting which antennas on which towers a particular phone connects to allows the phone company to triangulate a fairly precise location.

In addition, technological advances are allowing cell towers to serve smaller and smaller areas. That means connected users are in even more specific locations. The FCC actually requires phone companies to be able to locate most cellphones within 50 meters when they call 911, to be able to direct emergency responders to the correct location.

Keeping up with tech trends

Susan Walsh/AP

It is in the public’s interest for police to be able to track, catch and convict criminals. But to protect innocent citizens from harassment, the Bill of Rights established a process requiring investigators to get a judge’s signoff before conducting most searches for evidence.

Early in the 20th century, courts thought phone wiretaps didn’t require a warrant as long as the physical wiretap equipment was placed outside a target’s home. Over time, the importance of the telephone as a communications medium and the rise of the internet led to the increased protections provided by the 1986 Stored Communications Act. That law clarified constitutional procedure for the telephone age.

Under the law, police need a warrant to tap a person’s phone and listen to all his conversations. Without a warrant, officers can see what numbers a phone called, what numbers called that phone and when and how long the conversations lasted – but cannot eavesdrop on what was said.

Those rules have not been updated for the age of the mobile phone. As a result, a legal principle called the “third party doctrine” applies in Carpenter’s case – and in dozens, if not hundreds, of others. It says that if a person gives someone else a piece of information, that knowledge is no longer considered private.

In practice, it seems straightforward: If you tell a friend what you did last night, you can’t later stop your friend from telling the police what you said. And in fact, the Supreme Court has held that your friend could wear a “wire” so that the police can listen in, without a warrant and without informing you.

The way this plays out regarding the location of a cellphone is the assumption that by carrying a cellphone – which communicates on its own with the phone company – you have effectively told the phone company where you are. Therefore, your location isn’t private, and the police can get that information from the cellphone company without a warrant, and without even telling you they’re tracking you. This assumption is what Carpenter’s appeal is challenging.

Cell phones and privacy

Scott Morgan/Reuters

I have been at the leading edge of data science for over 30 years. Based on my work on the ethics of data science, I believe the assumptions that were safe in 1986 – when almost nobody had cellphones and nearly all telephones were landlines serving fixed locations – are no longer reasonable.

Back then, the information a phone user revealed to a phone company was very limited. Today, people disclose their location all the time, for routine, law-abiding activities, by carrying around cellphones.

Cellphone companies can know not only whom you call and for how long you speak, but where you are when you make the call, where you go in between calls and much more. They can deduce even more information, such as individuals’ religious affiliations and any number of personal habits that might be better kept secret – including how often an employee uses the restroom during a workday.

It makes no practical sense to claim a person could protect the privacy of their location and movements by not carrying a cellphone: The social and economic burden that would impose on each person would be too high.

This threat to privacy goes well beyond mobile phones: Automated license plate readers on bridges, roadsides and even police cars can easily record the identity of every vehicle, confirming its presence at a specific location at a particular time. A privacy-conscious person might give up driving, and instead rely on walking and taking public transportation. Cameras on the streets, at bus stops and in transit vehicles – coupled with tremendous recent advances in face recognition technology – can still track every move you make.

Personal health devices collect a great deal of information about users to help them achieve fitness goals, and may even be useful to provide early diagnosis of diseases. But information from a pacemaker has already been used to charge an alleged arsonist, and a Fitbit helped solve a murder.

Companies that provide internet service can learn a great deal about their customers simply by observing what websites users connect to, even if they don’t read the contents of each web page or email message. As electronic personal assistants (like Siri and Alexa) and home devices (like Nest) become more common and used more heavily, they will soon learn even more intimate details about people’s lives.

Declining to provide information to these “third party” service providers would require people to opt out of normal life – which isn’t really a choice.

Companies and their users' data

Snap

Most Americans don’t want their mobile phone companies to just hand over to police the enormous amount of information cellphones can reveal – at least not without getting a warrant first. But Americans’ privacy problem goes much deeper. Most people also don’t want their mobile phone companies to sell these data to others.

Many companies may seek that information to try to persuade more customers to buy their products, but nefarious uses are also possible. A person could be blackmailed with a threat of publicizing their (completely lawful) secrets – such as a particular health condition, religious affiliation or sexual preference.

Today, the protection people get goes only as far as the fine print of each service’s privacy policy. When a company goes out of business, its creditors try to make money from its assets – including data collected from and about its users. That is why I have called for companies to take the Data Destruction Pledge, promising that all customer data will be destroyed if the company ceases operation.

The FBI found Timothy Carpenter because one of his accomplices told them about him. I believe the FBI could have obtained a search warrant to track Carpenter, if agents had applied for one. Instead, federal agents got cellphone location data not just for Carpenter, but for 15 other people, most of whom were not charged with any crime. One of them could be you, and you’d likely never know it.

The more people rely on external devices whose basic functions record and transmit important data about their lives, the more critical it becomes for everyone to have real protection for their private data stored on and communicated by these devices.

NOW WATCH: Here’s why your jeans have that tiny front pocket

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2khUFYB